The mystery of prolonged childhood is at the heart of human evolution. To pursue the life you want, sometimes you need a financial advocate who knows where you want to go. Now, I've worked around it, but if I were an early human that spotted this, I would stop making the hand ax right now. You could sort of reconstruct the situation, and how the boy had Third, messages tailored for each of the groups of people that influence the intended beneficiary are employed using communicators and language that are meaningful to each group.
An encyclopedia of philosophy articles written by professional philosophers.
This intuition is one that any acceptable moral theory must be able to accommodate. The argument against indirect theories is that they cannot accommodate this intuition in a satisfying way.
Both Kant and Carruthers agree that my torturing my own cat for fun would be wrong. However, they believe it is wrong not because of the harm to the cat, but rather because of the effect this act will have on me. Many people have found this to be a very unsatisfying account of the duty.
If it is, in itself, perfectly all right to do anything at all to animals for any reason whatsoever, then provided a person realizes the clear line between animals and persons and keeps it in mind as he acts, why should killing animals brutalize him and make him more likely to harm or kill persons Nozick, In other words, unless it is wrong in itself to harm the animal, it is hard to see why such an act would lead people to do other acts that are likewise wrong. If the indirect theorist does not have a better explanation for why it is wrong to torture a cat for fun, and as long as we firmly believe such actions are wrong, then we will be forced to admit that indirect theories are not acceptable.
Indirect theorists can, and have, responded to this line of argument in three ways. First, they could reject the claim that the indirect theorist's explanation of the duty is unsatisfactory. Second, they could offer an alternative explanation for why such actions as torturing a cat are wrong.
Third, they could reject the claim that those sorts of acts are necessarily wrong. Most people accept an account of the proper moral status of animals according to which the interests of animals count directly in the assessment of actions that affect them, but do not count for as much as the interests of human beings.
Their defense requires two parts: The argument in support of the claim that animals have direct moral status is rather simple. It goes as follows:. Examples of positively valenced episodes of awareness are pleasure, joy, elation, and contentment. Examples of negatively valenced episodes of awareness are pain, suffering, depression, and anxiety.
In support of premise 1 , many argue that pain and pleasure are directly morally relevant, and that there is no reason to discount completely the pleasure or pain of any being. The argument from analogy is often used in support of premise 2 see the discussion of this argument in section I, part C above.
The argument from analogy is also used in answering the difficult question of exactly which animals are sentient. The general idea is that the justification for attributing sentience to a being grows stronger the more analogous it is to human beings. People also commonly use the flaws of indirect theories as a reason to support the claim that animals have direct moral status. Those that believe both that the marginal cases have direct moral status and that indirect theories cannot answer the challenge of the Argument from Marginal Cases are led to support direct theories; those that believe both that such actions as the torture of one's own cat for fun are wrong and that indirect theories cannot explain why they are wrong are also led to direct theories.
The usual manner of justifying the claim that animals are not equal to human beings is to point out that only humans have some property, and then argue that that property is what confers a full and equal moral status to human beings.
Some philosophers have used the following claims on this strategy: On one common understanding of rights, only human beings have rights. On this conception of rights, if a being has a right then others have a duty to refrain from infringing that right; rights entail duties. An individual that has a right to something must be able to claim that thing for himself, where this entails being able to represent himself in his pursuit of the thing as a being that is legitimately pursuing the furtherance of his interests Cf.
Since animals are not capable of representing themselves in this way, they cannot have rights. However, lacking rights does not entail lacking direct moral status; although rights entail duties it does not follow that duties entail rights. So although animals may have no rights, we may still have duties to them. The significance of having a right, however, is that rights act as "trumps" against the pursuit of utility. In other words, if an individual has a right to something, we are not permitted to infringe on that right simply because doing so will have better overall results.
Our duties to those without rights can be trumped by considerations of the overall good. Although I have a duty to refrain from destroying your property, that duty can be trumped if I must destroy the property in order to save a life.
Likewise, I am not permitted to harm animals without good reason; however, if greater overall results will come about from such harm, then it is justified to harm animals.
This sort of reasoning has been used to justify such practices as experimentation that uses animals, raising animals for food, and using animals for our entertainment in such places as rodeos and zoos. There are two points of contention with the above account of rights.
First, it has been claimed that if human beings have rights, then animals will likewise have rights. For example, Joel Feinberg has argued that all is required in order for a being to have a right is that the being be capable of being represented as legitimately pursuing the furtherance of its interests Feinberg, The claim that the being must be able to represent itself is too strong, thinks Feinberg, for such a requirement will exclude infants, the senile, and other marginal cases from the class of beings with rights.
In other words, Feinberg invokes yet another instance of the Argument from Marginal Cases in order to support his position. Second, it has been claimed that the very idea of rights needs to be jettisoned. There are two reasons for this. First, philosophers such as R. Frey have questioned the legitimacy of the very idea of rights, echoing Bentham's famous claim that rights are "nonsense on stilts" Frey, Second, philosophers have argued that whether or not a being will have rights will depend essentially on whether or not it has some other lower-order property.
For example, on the above conception of rights, whether a being will have a right or not will depend on whether it is able to represent itself as a being that is legitimately pursuing the furtherance of its interests. If that is what grounds rights, then what is needed is a discussion of the moral importance of that ability, along with a defense of the claim that it is an ability that animals lack. More generally, it has been argued that if we wish to deny animals rights and claim that only human beings have them, then we must focus not so much on rights, but rather on what grounds them.
For this reason, much of the recent literature concerning animals and ethics focuses not so much on rights, but rather on whether or not animals have certain other properties, and whether the possession of those properties is a necessary condition for equal consideration Cf.
Some people argue that only rational, autonomous, and self-conscious beings deserve full and equal moral status; since only human beings are rational, autonomous, and self-conscious, it follows that only human beings deserve full and equal moral status. Once again, it is not claimed that we can do whatever we like to animals; rather, the fact that animals are sentient gives us reason to avoid causing them unnecessary pain and suffering.
However, when the interests of animals and human beings conflict we are required to give greater weight to the interests of human beings. This also has been used to justify such practices as experimentation on animals, raising animals for food, and using animals in such places as zoos and rodeos. The attributes of rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness confer a full and equal moral status to those that possess them because these beings are the only ones capable of attaining certain values and goods; these values and goods are of a kind that outweigh the kinds of values and goods that non-rational, non-autonomous, and non-self-conscious beings are capable of attaining.
For example, in order to achieve the kind of dignity and self-respect that human beings have, a being must be able to conceive of itself as one among many, and must be able to choose his actions rather than be led by blind instinct Cf. Francis and Norman, ; Steinbock, Furthermore, the values of appreciating art, literature, and the goods that come with deep personal relationships all require one to be rational, autonomous, and self-conscious.
These values, and others like them, are the highest values to us; they are what make our lives worth living. As John Stuart Mill wrote, "Few human creatures would consent to be changed into any of the lower animals for a promise of the fullest allowance of a beast's pleasures" Mill, We find the lives of beings that can experience these goods to be more valuable, and hence deserving of more protection, than the lives of beings that cannot. Another reason for giving stronger preference to the interests of human beings is that only human beings can act morally.
This is considered to be important because beings that can act morally are required to sacrifice their interests for the sake of others. It follows that those that do sacrifice their good for the sake of others are owed greater concern from those that benefit from such sacrifices.
Since animals cannot act morally, they will not sacrifice their own good for the sake of others, but will rather pursue their good even at the expense of others. That is why human beings should give the interests of other human beings greater weight than they do the interests of animals. Finally, some claim that membership in the moral community is necessary for full and equal moral status.
The moral community is not defined in terms of the intrinsic properties that beings have, but is defined rather in terms of the important social relations that exist between beings. For example, human beings can communicate with each other in meaningful ways, can engage in economic, political, and familial relationships with each other, and can also develop deep personal relationships with each other.
These kinds of relationships require the members of such relationships to extend greater concern to other members of these relationships than they do to others in order for the relationships to continue. Since these relationships are what constitute our lives and the value contained in them, we are required to give greater weight to the interests of human beings than we do to animals.
The final theories to discuss are the moral equality theories. On these theories, not only do animals have direct moral status, but they also have the same moral status as human beings. According to theorists of this kind, there can be no legitimate reason to place human beings and animals in different moral categories, and so whatever grounds our duties to human beings will likewise ground duties to animals. Peter Singer has been very influential in the debate concerning animals and ethics.
Singer attacks the views of those who wish to give the interests of animals less weight than the interests of human beings. He argues that if we attempt to extend such unequal consideration to the interests of animals, we will be forced to give unequal consideration to the interests of different human beings. However, doing this goes against the intuitively plausible and commonly accepted claim that all human beings are equal.
Singer concludes that we must instead extend a principle of equal consideration of interests to animals as well. Singer describes that principle as follows:. The essence of the Principle of Equal Consideration of Interests is that we give equal weight in our moral deliberations to the like interests of all those affected by our actions Singer, Singer defends this principle with two arguments.
Singer's version of the Argument from Marginal Cases is slightly different from the version listed above. It runs as follows:. Singer does not defend his first premise, but does not need to; the proponents of the view that all and only humans deserve a full and equal moral status rely on it themselves see the discussion of Direct but Unequal Theories above. In support of the second premise, Singer asks us to consider exactly what properties only humans have that can ground such a strong moral status.
Certain properties, such as being human, having human DNA, or walking upright do not seem to be the kind of properties that can ground this kind of status.
For example, if we were to encounter alien life forms that did not have human DNA, but lived lives much like our own, we would not be justified in according these beings a weaker moral status simply because they were not human. However, there are some properties which only human beings have which have seemed to many to be able to ground a full and equal moral status; for example, being rational, autonomous, or able to act morally have all been used to justify giving a stronger status to human beings than we do to animals.
The problem with such a suggestion is that not all human beings have these properties. So if this is what grounds a full and equal moral status, it follows that not all human beings are equal after all.
If we try to ensure that we choose a property that all human beings do have that will be sufficient to ground a full and equal moral status, we seemed to be pushed towards choosing something such as being sentient, or being capable of experiencing pleasure and pain.
Since the marginal cases have this property, they would be granted a full and equal moral status on this suggestion. However, if we choose a property of this kind, animals will likewise have a full and equal moral status since they too are sentient. The attempt to grant all and only human beings a full and equal moral status does not work according to Singer.
We must either conclude that not all human beings are equal, or we must conclude that not only human beings are equal. Singer suggests that the first option is too counter-intuitive to be acceptable; so we are forced to conclude that all animals are equal, human or otherwise.
Another argument Singer employs to refute the claim that all and only human beings deserve a full and equal moral status focuses on the supposed moral relevance of such properties as rationality, autonomy, the ability to act morally, etc. Singer argues that if we were to rely on these sorts of properties as the basis of determining moral status, then we would justify a kind of discrimination against certain human beings that is structurally analogous to such practices as racism and sexism.
For example, the racist believes that all members of his race are more intelligent and rational than all of the members of other races, and thus assigns a greater moral status to the members of his race than he does do the members of other races. However, the racist is wrong in this factual judgment; it is not true that all members of any one race are smarter than all members of any other.
Notice, however, that the mistake the racist is making is merely a factual mistake. His moral principle that assigns moral status on the basis of intelligence or rationality is not what has led him astray.
Rather, it is simply his assessment of how intelligence or rationality is distributed among human beings that is mistaken. If that were all that is wrong with racism and sexism, then a moral theory according to which we give extra consideration to the very smart and rational would be justified. In other words, we would be justified in becoming, not racists, but sophisticated inegalitarians.
However, the sophisticated inegalitarian is just as morally suspect as the racist is. Therefore, it follows that the racist is not morally objectionable merely because of his views on how rationality and intelligence are distributed among human beings; rather he is morally objectionable because of the basis he uses to weigh the interests of different individuals.
How intelligent, rational, etc. Notice that in order for this argument to succeed, it must target properties that admit of degrees. If someone argued that the basis of human equality rested on the possession of a property that did not admit of degrees, it would not follow that some human beings have that property to a stronger degree than others, and the sophisticated inegalitarian would not be justified. However, most of the properties that are used in order to support the claim that all and only human beings deserve a full and equal moral status are properties that do admit of degrees.
Such properties as being human or having human DNA do not admit of degrees, but, as already mentioned, these properties do not seem to be capable of supporting such a moral status. In order to implement the Principle of Equal Consideration of Interests in the practical sphere, we must be able to determine the interests of the beings that will be affected by our actions, and we must give similar interests similar weight. Singer concludes that animals can experience pain and suffering by relying on the argument from analogy see the discussion of Cartesian Theories above.
Since animals can experience pain and suffering, they have an interest in avoiding pain. These facts require the immediate end to many of our practices according to Singer. For example, animals that are raised for food in factory farms live lives that are full of unimaginable pain and suffering Singer devotes an entire chapter of his book to documenting these facts. He relies mainly on magazines published by the factory farm business for these facts. Although human beings do satisfy their interests by eating meat, Singer argues that the interests the animals have in avoiding this unimaginable pain and suffering is greater than the interests we have in eating food that tastes good.
If we are to apply the Principle of Equal Consideration of Interests, we will be forced to cease raising animals in factory farms for food. A failure to do so is nothing other than speciesism, or giving preference to the interests of our own species merely because of they are of our species. Singer does not unequivocally claim that we must not eat animals if we are to correctly apply the Principle of Equal Consideration of Interests.
Whether we are required to refrain from painlessly killing animals will depend on whether animals have an interest in continuing to exist in the future. In order to have this interest, Singer believes that a being must be able to conceive of itself as existing into the future, and this requires a being to be self-conscious.
Non-self-conscious beings are not harmed by their deaths, according to Singer, for they do not have an interest in continuing to exist into the future. Singer argues that we might be able to justify killing these sorts of beings with The Replaceability Argument.
On this line of thought, if we kill a non-self-conscious being that was living a good life, then we have lessened the overall amount of good in the world. This can be made up, however, by bringing another being into existence that can experience similar goods. In other words, non-self-conscious beings are replaceable: Since the animals we rear for food would not exist if we did not eat them, it follows that killing these animals can be justified if the animals we rear for food live good lives.
However, in order for this line of argumentation to justify killing animals, the animals must not only be non-self-conscious, but they must also live lives that are worth living, and their deaths must be painless. Singer expresses doubts that all of these conditions could be met, and unequivocally claims that they are not met by such places as factory farms. Singer also condemns most experimentation in which animals are used. He first points out that many of the experiments performed using animal subjects do not have benefits for human beings that would outweigh the pain caused to the animals.
For example, experiments used to test cosmetics or other non-necessary products for human beings cannot be justified if we use the Principle of Equal Consideration of Interests. Singer also condemns experiments that are aimed at preventing or curing human diseases. If we are prepared to use animal subjects for such experiments, then it would actually be better from a scientific point of view to use human subjects instead, for there would be no question of cross-species comparisons when interpreting the data.
If we believe the benefits outweigh the harms, then instead of using animals we should instead use orphaned infants that are severely cognitively disabled. If we believe that such a suggestion is morally repugnant when human beings are to be used, but morally innocuous when animals are to be used, then we are guilty of speciesism.
Likewise, hunting for sport, using animals in rodeos, keeping animals confined in zoos wherein they are not able to engage in their natural activities are all condemned by the use of the Principle of the Equal Consideration of Interests. Regan argues for the claim that animals have rights in just the same way that human beings do.
Regan believes it is a mistake to claim that animals have an indirect moral status or an unequal status, and to then infer that animals cannot have any rights. He also thinks it is a mistake to ground an equal moral status on Utilitarian grounds, as Singer attempts to do.
According to Regan, we must conclude that animals have the same moral status as human beings; furthermore, that moral status is grounded on rights, not on Utilitarian principles. Regan argues for his case by relying on the concept of inherent value. According to Regan, any being that is a subject-of-a-life is a being that has inherent value. A being that has inherent value is a being towards which we must show respect; in order to show respect to such a being, we cannot use it merely as a means to our ends.
Instead, each such being must be treated as an end in itself. In other words, a being with inherent value has rights, and these rights act as trumps against the promotion of the overall good. Regan relies on a version of the Argument from Marginal Cases in arguing for this conclusion. He begins by asking what grounds human rights. He rejects robust views that claim that a being must be capable of representing itself as legitimately pursuing the furtherance of its interests on the grounds that this conception of rights implies that the marginal cases of humanity do not have rights.
However, since we think that these beings do have moral rights there must be some other property that grounds these rights. According to Regan, the only property that is common to both normal adult human beings and the marginal cases is the property of being a subject-of-a-life.
A being that is a subject-of-a-life will:. This property is one that all of the human beings that we think deserve rights have; however, it is a property that many animals especially mammals have as well.
So if these marginal cases of humanity deserve rights, then so do these animals. Although this position may seem quite similar to Singer's position see section III, part A above , Regan is careful to point to what he perceives to be the flaws of Singer's Utilitarian theory.
According to Singer, we are required to count every similar interest equally in our deliberation. However, by doing this we are focusing on the wrong thing, Regan claims. What matters is the individual that has the interest, not the interest itself. By focusing on interests themselves, Utilitarianism will license the most horrendous actions. For example, if it were possible to satisfy more interests by performing experiments on human beings, then that is what we should do on Utilitarian grounds.
However, Regan believes this is clearly unacceptable: This does not mean that Regan takes rights to be absolute. When the rights of different individuals conflict, then someone's rights must be overriden. Regan argues that in these sorts of cases we must try to minimize the rights that are overriden. However, we are not permitted to override someone's rights just because doing so will make everyone better off; in this kind of case we are sacrificing rights for utility, which is never permissible on Regan's view.
Given these considerations, Regan concludes that we must radically alter the ways in which we treat animals. When we raise animals for food, regardless of how they are treated and how they are killed, we are using them as a means to our ends and not treating them as ends in themselves. Thus, we may not raise animals for food. Likewise, when we experiment on animals in order to advance human science, we are using animals merely as a means to our ends.
Similar thoughts apply to the use of animals in rodeos and the hunting of animals. Animals and Ethics What place should non-human animals have in an acceptable moral system? Indirect Theories On indirect theories, animals do not warrant our moral concern on their own, but may warrant concern only in so far as they are appropriately related to human beings. Cartesian Theories Another reason to deny that animals deserve direct concern arises from the belief that animals are not conscious, and therefore have no interests or well-being to take into consideration when considering the effects of our actions.
Contractualist Theories Contractualist Theories of morality construe morality to be the set of rules that rational individuals would choose under certain specified conditions to govern their behavior in society. Implications for the Treatment of Animals If indirect theories are correct, then we are not required to take the interests of animals to be directly relevant to the assessment of our actions when we are deciding how to act.
Two Common Arguments Against Indirect Theories Two common arguments against indirect theories have seemed compelling to many people. The Argument From Marginal Cases The Argument from Marginal Cases is an argument that attempts to demonstrate that if animals do not have direct moral status, then neither do such human beings as infants, the senile, the severely cognitively disabled, and other such "marginal cases" of humanity.
More formally, the argument is structured as follows: If we are justified in denying direct moral status to animals then we are justified in denying direct moral status to the marginal cases. We are not justified in denying direct moral status to the marginal cases. Therefore we are not justified denying direct moral status to animals. Problems with Indirect Duties to Animals Another argument against indirect theories begins with the intuition that there are some things that simply cannot be done to animals.
Direct but Unequal Theories Most people accept an account of the proper moral status of animals according to which the interests of animals count directly in the assessment of actions that affect them, but do not count for as much as the interests of human beings. Why Animals have Direct Moral Status The argument in support of the claim that animals have direct moral status is rather simple.
It goes as follows: If a being is sentient then it has direct moral status. Most animals are sentient Therefore most animals have direct moral status. Why Animals are not Equal to Human Beings The usual manner of justifying the claim that animals are not equal to human beings is to point out that only humans have some property, and then argue that that property is what confers a full and equal moral status to human beings. Only Human Beings are Rational, Autonomous, and Self-Conscious Some people argue that only rational, autonomous, and self-conscious beings deserve full and equal moral status; since only human beings are rational, autonomous, and self-conscious, it follows that only human beings deserve full and equal moral status.
Only Human Beings Can Act Morally Another reason for giving stronger preference to the interests of human beings is that only human beings can act morally. It's Okay to Be "selfish" Sometimes: Last year the fertility rate fell to In , we "overshot" Earth's resource budget by only 2 days - Overshoot Day fell on December FDA Approves New Vaginal Ring for One Year of Birth Control FDA today approved Annovera which is a combined hormonal contraceptive for women of reproductive age used to prevent pregnancy and is the first vaginal ring contraceptive that can be used for an entire year.
About two to four women out of women may get pregnant during the first year they use Annovera. Many members of the public and policy makers—perhaps especially Americans—erroneously think of climate change as an environmental problem whose effects are largely distant from us—in time i. In reality, human-caused climate change is causing harm now i. Although the public is not well versed in any of the vexing ways that climate change is harming us and our world—including making our weather more dangerous, threatening our food and fresh water supplies, and damaging our infrastructure and coastal communities—we contend that the most important public education opportunities may be found in communicating the myriad ways that climate change is harming our health, and the truly profound health benefits associated with clean energy.
Similarly, we contend that educating the public and policy makers about the many vexing harms associated with air pollution—which like climate change is caused primarily by the burning of fossil fuels—creates important opportunities to build public and political will for public health and climate solutions.
Searching for An Alternative to Growth at All Costs Japan is experiencing unprecedented demographic change, due to rapid ageing and, since , decreasing population.
In the period , world population increased steadily at 83 million per year, and reached 7. Despite population growth, the global average daily food supply per person rose from 2, kilocalories in to 2, kilocalories in However, over million people are undernourished and over million adults are obese.
Time is Running Out in the Tropics: Although they cover just 0. Who Gets Legal Abortions in America? On television, half of women get abortions when it interferes with their opportunities.
Based on the records of nearly 20, patients, a study of the Iowa program showed that the telemedicine abortion was just as safe and effective as meeting with a doctor face to face. Currently, Planned Parenthood affiliates in 10 states offer telemedicine abortion.
Time for a Radical Rethink As of Wednesday, August 1, , we have officially used up all of the Earth's resources for the year - and there are still five months left to go. High-income countries currently need 1. If we were to cut our global carbon use in half, the date of Earth Overshoot Day would be pushed back by about three months.
America's Middle Class is Slowly Being 'wiped Out' Before the crash, only one-quarter of Americans viewed themselves as lower class or lower-middle class. The United States has the largest wealth inequality gap of the countries in the Global Wealth Report of Extreme Oil Price Volatility: Since the beginning of the industrial era, the ocean has absorbed around billion tons of CO2, equivalent to around 22 million tons per day.
Proponents of family planning and reproductive rights have gone too far. But we — President Trump and his administration — have moved quickly to fight this threat, enacting policies that put morality and religion back at the heart of American health care.
Latin America and the Caribbean is the only region in the world where there has been no significant decline or change in rates of child marriage in the last 30 years. Family Planning is Crucial for Those in the Developing World The lifetime risk of a woman in sub-Saharan Africa dying from pregnancy or childbirth is 1 in Women Fight Back Against Peru's National Sterilisation Scheme Josefina Quispe is one of thousands of indigenous Peruvian women who say they were forcibly sterilised as part of a national family planning scheme.
Limits to Growth was Right. New Research Shows We're Nearing Collapse If the present growth trends in world population, industrialisation, pollution, food production, and resource depletion continue unchanged, the limits to growth on this planet will be reached sometime within the next one hundred years.
The most probable result will be a rather sudden and uncontrollable decline in both population and industrial capacity. Limiting warming in this century to 3. The price for the precious exchange could be as small as a few head of livestock.
It happens every day. Once married, many girls and women are coerced into having large numbers of children. So let me try to break it down very simply. In the most recent Avengers movie, the story centers around a super-villain named Thanos that intends to wipe out half of all life in the universe.
He does not want to do this just to be evil, but rather his plan is to get population growth under control so that those that remain will be able to enjoy happy, sustainable lives. If that sounds uncomfortably close to something that you have heard before, that is because it is.
In the film, Thanos truly believes that he is doing the right thing, but since he is the villain everyone in the audience is theoretically supposed to be rooting for him to be defeated. But instead of being universally hated, Thanos has become the big breakout star from this movie. Of course population control is not exactly a new idea. It was one of the main reasons why ancient civilizations conducted human sacrifice rituals, and several centuries ago it was given a more modern spin by Thomas Malthus.
Shane Morris made in an article earlier this year…. India, a developing country that is home to the world's second-largest population, the total fertility rate has shown a steady decline from 3. A World Bank report shows that Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan all had birth rates of 6 children per woman in , but this declined by almost half by Abortion in the U.
The abortion rate is 37 per 1, women in countries that prohibit abortion altogether or allow it only to save a woman's life, and 34 per 1, in countries that allow abortion without restriction. By comparison, 9 out of women taking the pill, and 18 women out of using condoms, get pregnant every year. The latest estimate put the figure at million in , making it the seventh most populous nation, accounting for 2.
Nigeria has overtaken India as the poverty capital of the world, harbouring the largest number of people living in extreme poverty, with over 82 million, or Religious Leaders Begin Preaching Fertility Awareness The Muslim, Catholic and Protestant Medical bureaus, have launched a campaign to begin teaching their followers the values of planning for their families. While launching the campaign yesterday, Dr John Baptist Kauta, the Secretary General Uganda Episcopal Conference, dispelled the belief that the Catholic Church is against family planning and its methods, explaining that instead the Catholic Church promotes it because it means a good quality of life and society.
Wade, an anti-abortion movie beset by chaos. The brainchild of Nick Loeb, a wealthy conservative banking heir most famous for his embryo battle with ex-fiancée Sofia Vergara, and his producing partner Cathy Allyn, Roe v.
It began filming on June 15 in and around New Orleans under the fake title , with the shoot set to wrap on July Although national HIV rates are very low -- under 0. He was heading a three-member Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Umar Ata Bandial and Justice Ijazul Ahsan, hearing a suo motu case pertaining to increasing population in the country.
Americans Are Having Fewer Babies. But the most commonly used measure of fertility, the number of births for every 1, women of childbearing age, was The total fertility rate - which estimates how many children women will have based on current patterns - is down to 1.
The mortality rate among children born at intervals of less than one year is twice higher than among children born at intervals of two years or more. Egypt Water Scarcity Dangerous and Below Level of Poverty The UN predicts that Egypt will be approaching a state of "absolute water crisis" by and that the nation is already below the United Nations' water poverty threshold.
Last month, the government has raised the price of piped drinking water up to Nasa announced last week that the amount of ice lost annually from Antarctica has tripled since to an enormous bn tons a year.
Pakistan has a super-dense population of more than people per square kilometer. Hundreds of Fragments in Dead Seabirds New footage of the devastating impact of plastic pollution on wildlife has been captured by a BBC team. However, only six of the 19 health departments and federally qualified health clinics in the eastern Kentucky counties where All Access operates offer the full range of birth control options.
The project aimed to increase access to sexual and reproductive health services and improve maternal and child health care practices while reducing threats to biodiversity conservation in project communities. It also aimed to scale up the PHE model at the local, national, and regional levels through institutionalizing PHE in government development planning.
Data for the evaluation came from key informant interviews, focus group discussions, and an analysis of existing data and documents. Findings suggest notable successes and some areas for improvement. Key informants and secondary analysis revealed positive outcomes from institutionalization, sustainability, and expansion of the model.
Secondary data analysis revealed that the project made remarkable progress in achieving its objectives in health, family planning, sanitation, livelihoods, and conservation. Two Kids Or Too Many? There are almost million Egyptians already, and on current trends there will be 23 million more by The birthrate in Singapore plummeted from 4. How Kenyan Women Live with Profound Childbirth Injuries Across the world, there is an estimated two million women and girls who live with vaginal fistulas.
There are up to new cases each year. In Kenya, at least new cases are reported annually but research shows that only 7. By , Kenya only had three internationally renowned fistula surgeons and less than 10 surgeons who could perform simple obstetric operations. One in five girls worldwide is estimated to be married before the age of 18, including even in parts of the United States.
At births per 1, women aged , South Sudan has one of the highest rates of adolescent pregnancy in the world. South Sudan also has one of the world's worst maternal mortality rates at deaths per , life births. Did God kill Onan because he wasted his seen and spilled it on the ground?
They just read snippets. This leads to people dreadfully misinformed about biblical events. Judah got a wife for Er, his firstborn, and her name was Tamar. What Happens When Abortion is Banned? In Brazil, where abortion is all but banned, experts estimate there are about a million illegal abortions each year; around half of them are induced using abortion drugs. In the 45 years since Roe v.
Wade legalized abortion, states have enacted more than 1, anti-abortion laws. Half of the abortions in the United States take place among women below the federal poverty line. However, in most developing countries, change is not occurring fast enough and funding for this cause is inadequate.
Worldwide, approximately one in five girls under 18 are married or in a union and many are already mothers.
Now that the economic costs are clear, this is a good time to address the problem. Ensuring access to safe, quality education is a key to ending child marriage. Girls must be given the tools for success. In order for this cause to be successful rich countries must join the fight.
Justin Trudeau, the Canadian Prime Minister, has vowed to make gender equality a theme in discussions with other G7 ministers. Even though the number of girls married is declining each year, change is occurring too slowly. If the world does not act now and invest more in this cause, population growth will overtake gains and the number of child brides will be on the rise again.
The Berkeley City Council addressed the issue of over-population as it relates to global warming in its declaration of a climate emergency. The author called it a "breakthrough" that CO2 emissions are being considered, not only as a per capita function, but also as a function of the number of people doing the emitting. In the campaign to reduce emissions the role of population has largely been ignored.
Hybrid cars, solar energy, and using gas instead of coal are often the main topics of discussion. The world now has 7. This isn't the case, however, CO2 emissions now measure 36 billion tons. This is largely due to countries with large populations, like China, becoming industrialized. China is now the world's largest emitter at 10 billion tons of CO2 annually.
Assuming half the world is still agrarian and half is industrialized, the author hypothesized that emissions will fall to that level only if the world's population decreases to 2. For this reason, professional environmentalists advocate for both family planning and per capita carbon reducing. The need to reduce population is often denied because many think it interferes with economic growth.
In fact regions often pursue growth to stimulate their economies. In fact, "growth without end-point is unsustainable. This would effect expand the middle class and eliminate some of the factors associated with social and political instability. To erase inequality, all women should have access to health care, proper nutrition, and safe and effective learning environments throughout the educational process. Also important are upholding sexual and reproductive rights and combating sexual and gender-based violence, including harmful practices like child, early or forced marriage.
Women need to be given access to land ownership, credit, insurance, and savings, and the social norms that "relegate" women to lower paid professions need to be changed. It is imperative that the priorities of women be put at the forefront of the consideration of all governments and international entities.
Canada is one country that has done this with its Feminist International Assistance Policy that seeks to ensure equal rights and economic opportunities for all women and girls.
Another initiative that addresses inequality is the Women Entrepreneurs Finance Initiative, which is based at the World Bank and supported by 14 governments.
It loans money to women-owned or women-led businesses in developing countries. A recent Wilson Center event focused on the development of a more resilient world through sustainable development.
And, he believes "tailored education campaigns" are necessary for change. One of the biggest hurdles to achieving resilience is water security.
Water is essential for life, and each person in the developed world uses enough water to fill an Olympic swimming pool every year. As the population grows so does the demand for water. The ongoing water crisis in Pakistan, where the population is predicted to reach million by , "has brought the population issue also on to the table," said Zeba Sathar of the Population Council. Changing farms to feed families is another way to contribute to the stability of communities.
Seventy percent of water usage goes to food production, so Africare is encouraging farmers to plant drought-resistant plants to feed livestock. And, to address the problem of population growth exceeding food supply, family planning is being promoted along with changes in agricultural practices that increase nutritious food production.
Displacement due to extreme weather has caused additional instability in undeveloped regions. In Nigeria droughts have contributed to this problem, and in Pakistan flooding has led to destroyed homes and livelihoods. Zeba Sathar reported that the African Union has seen success "linking the reduction in fertility, and favorable birth spacing patterns, with a demographic dividend Jason Bremmer of Family Planning believes that to achieve resilience "it is really critical that we understand these interlinked challenges and we find new ways of doing business, as business as usual - standard family planning programs, our standard efforts of reaching communities with water and environmental issues - are going to be further stressed.
Since the last edition 20 years ago , soil loss and land degradation have increased dramatically, and the the new findings highlight an urgent need to correct land usage worldwide. Worldwide, a total area of half the European Union is degraded annually.
Soil degradation for the EU alone costs tens of billions euros a year. An uptick in deforestation makes it difficult to minimize climate change. And, by , million people are estimated to be displaced due to land issues. On the global level, under the United Nations' Sustainable Development Agenda, world leaders have committed to "combat desertification, restore degraded land and soil, including land affected by desertification, drought and floods, and strive to achieve a land degradation-neutral world" by Local solutions and cooperation are also needed.
Increasing farming yields, changing to plant based diets, and eating animal proteins from sustainable sources only are advised locally. Many in undeveloped countries like Kenya relied on that aid to provide women with birth control. Without it many cannot afford contraceptives, are becoming pregnant, and are then resorting to backstreet abortions to terminate the pregnancy. In Kenya, where abortion is illegal, Khadijah Dija used to visit a family clinic to get free injectable birth control every three months.
She is still bleeding a month after taking the pills. Wilson Bunde of Family Health Options Kenya FHOK reports that women who were coming to clinics for contraceptives are now coming to be treated for botched abortions instead. That forced FHOK to stop offering free or reduced cost contraception, close a clinic, and cut a community outreach program. Because of those cuts, Bunde estimated that 36, women went without family planning last year. The Mexico City policy, otherwise known as the 'global gag rule', has been in place on and off since President Ronald Reagan introduced it in Generally over the years, it has been rescinded by Democratic administrations and reinstated by Republicans, but it has never before been applied to this extent.
A Stanford University study found that, when the Mexico City policy is in place, women were up to 2. Trump is also considering similar changes in the US. Recently his administration proposed a new rule that would bar abortions or abortion advice at facilities receiving federal family planning funds. Those who don't comply would lose federal funding.
It would be a domestic version of the global gag policy. Jennifer Molidor, writer, professor, and wildlife advocate, said that "there's no such thing as sustainable beef with our current rates of consumption and its impact on the planet.
The beef industry has been trying to convince us that beef is the new "eco-friendly" food. The USRSB's framework "lacks transparency and teeth needed to hold beef producers responsible for the damage they do to our land, water, air, climate. The truth is the beef industry is riddled with waste and is a model of inefficiency.
The average American's annual hamburger appetite adds up to 1, pounds of carbon dioxide equivalents C02e 2, 2. To gain a pound, a cow has to eat about 6 pounds of feed. Grass-fed beef requires about five times more water to produce than industrial beef.
The beef industry is currently pressuring the Environmental Protection Agency to do away with the Clean Water Rule, which hold farms accountable for polluting waterways, and are against pollution reporting requirements. Molidor believes that "a lot can be done to make meat production less destructive to the climate.
However, the only way to make the beef industry truly sustainable is for consumers to eat less and decrease production. India's first census counted million people in - one-seventh of the world's population. Nearly 9 million kids had married before age The population was projected to grow by , per year.